[Archived] Gun Law Debate: Please keep posts civil and conversational

[Stuart]

No one has an arsenal of "automatic" weapons in their home, unless they are SWAT team members or the like. The anti-gun lobby's inability to distinguish between semi-automatic, automatic and revolvers is a stumbling block.

The way to reinterpret the Constitution is to amend it.

You say potayto I say potahto. Can you please expand on why the anti-gun lobby are causing the problem?

Why does it need to be amended? The militia part is ignored due to interpretation, is it not?

People wouldn't mind so much if it was just idiots killing idiots (I don't recall seeing shock and outrage at the gun crimes in say one of the poorer boroughs of New York). It could be said to be natural selection or survival of the fittest or some other nonsense. But I can't see why innocent people should be killed as a result of maintaining a requirement seemingly from a different era?

Apologies if you've already posted a link somewhere but in a sentence, two at most, could you explain what the pro-gun lobby believe will happen if guns are outlawed outside shooting clubs? Apart from a major loss of profits?

[jim mk2]

Hope for the US: Press Association today

OBAMA VOWS ACTION ON GUN VIOLENCE

US President Barack Obama pledged to put his ``full weight'' behind a legislative package next year aimed at tackling gun violence, recalling the school gun rampage that killed 20 young pupils as the worst day of his presidency.

In an interview with NBC television's Meet The Press that aired today, Mr Obama voiced scepticism about the proposal by the National Rifle Association, the leading gun rights lobby group, to place armed guards at schools in the aftermath of the December 14 deadly assault at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

Instead, the president vowed to rally the American people around an agenda to limit gun violence, adding that he still supports increased background checks and bans on assault weapons and high capacity bullet magazines. He left no doubt it will be one of his top priorities next year.

``It is not enough for us to say, 'This is too hard so we're not going to try','' Mr Obama said. ``I think there are a vast majority of responsible gun owners out there who recognise that we can't have a situation in which somebody with severe psychological problems is able to get the kind of high capacity weapons that this individual in Newtown obtained and gun down our kids,'' he added. ``And, yes, it's going to be hard.''

The president added that he is ready to meet with Republicans and Democrats, anyone with a stake in the issue.

The school shootings, coming as families prepared for the Christmas holiday, elevated the issue of gun violence to the forefront of public attention.

Six adult staff members were also killed. Gunman Adam Lanza committed suicide, apparently as police closed in. Earlier, he had killed his mother at the home they shared.

The tragedy immediately prompted calls for greater gun controls. But the National Rifle Association is strongly resisting those efforts, arguing instead that schools should have armed guards for protection. Some gun enthusiasts have rushed to buy semiautomatic rifles of the type used by Lanza, fearing sales may soon be restricted.

Mr Obama seemed unimpressed by the NRA proposal. ``I am sceptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools,'' he said. ``And I think the vast majority of the American people are sceptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem.''

The president said he intends to press the issue with the public.

``The question then becomes whether we are actually shook up enough by what happened here that it does not just become another one of these routine episodes where it gets a lot of attention for a couple of weeks and then it drifts away,'' Mr Obama said.

``It certainly won't feel like that to me. This is something that - you know, that was the worst day of my presidency. And it's not something that I want to see repeated.''

Separately, a member of the president's cabinet said today that rural America may be ready to join a national conversation about gun control.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the debate has to start with respect for the Second Amendment of the US Constitution which guarantees the right to bear arms and a recognition that hunting is a way of life for millions of Americans.

But Mr Vilsack said Newtown has changed the way people see the issue. ``I really believe that this is a different circumstance and a different situation and I think the president believes it as well, that this is going to be sustained conversation,'' Mr Vilsack said on CNN.

[Steve Moss]

Stuart:

First, the militia clause is not being ignored under the Second Amendment. Per the Supreme Court's Heller decision, the "militia" is the entire body of the people. The militia (i.e. the people) cannot have access to arms cut off or otherwise they'd be unable to resist professional armies and, eventually, be subject to a tyrannical government.

In context, the founding father's were revolutionaries. They'd just defeated the best army in the world in order to free themselves from a government which they viewed as a tyranny. Under the new system they set up, they wanted to ensure the population could resist in the event their successors went down the same path.

Also, while it is mentioned, ensuring an armed militia (people) was not the only reason for enacting the Second Amendment. The fundamental right to individual self-defense is another purpose for its enactment. This is born out in the history and debates surrounding its adoption. It is for this reason that Washington DC's gun laws were ruled unconstitutional.

Regardless of whether one feels its appropriate in the modern age, that is the constitutional (supreme) law of the land in the USA. If a group wants to repeal it, they can do so by [simply stated] getting a 2/3 vote amongst the states. Good luck with that.

Second, if the anti-gun crowd is successful in banning guns I suspect we'd see fewer murders, though it won't be as low as the UK as we have somewhat different cultures and, I suspect, a larger percentage of the population willing to do murder. In inconvenient fact with our murder rate is that it is largely motivated by gangs and the drug wars in the inner cities. The Newton shootings and similar get the headlines, but the 500 murders in Chicago are largely ignored as a large segment of society is out of control with criminal gangs dominating entire neighborhoods. If drugs were legalized, I'd bet that our murder rate would drop more than 50%.

On the downside, if guns were made illegal I also suspect we'd see our rape, assault, kidnapping, robbery and burglary rates skyrocket.

If you don't believe me, as one example check out the side by side comparisons between the USA and the UK and Australia. A woman's chances of being raped in the UK The UK assault rate is many times that of the USA. I believe its because a criminally minded big guy with a knife knows he can attack just about any woman anyone he chooses in the UK. In the USA potential rapists attackers have to deal with the inconvenient possibility that the 5' 2", 110 lb blonde is packing a .38. Guns don't care about how big, strong or skilled in the martial arts you are; the revolver was referred to as the "Equalizer" for a reason.

Ditto with a home invader. Dad may be a bespectacled pencil-necked accountant, but his shotgun will trump any armed group of thugs, especially as he'll know the house and circumstances, and they won't. Which means its far likelier that a group of criminals will crash a UK house as opposed to a USA house.

Edit: I confused the UK assault vs. rape statistics. Corrected.

OBAMA VOWS ACTION ON GUN VIOLENCE

In an interview with NBC television's Meet The Press that aired today, Mr Obama voiced scepticism about the proposal by the National Rifle Association, the leading gun rights lobby group, to place armed guards at schools in the aftermath of the December 14 deadly assault at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

Interesting. It's rarely mentioned that Obama and many leading journalist's children attend the same private school. Which employ 11 armed guards. If his kids and those of other rich parents can have 11 guards, why can't mine have 1 guard?

[jim mk2]

Interesting. It's rarely mentioned that Obama and many leading journalist's children attend the same private school. Which employ 11 armed guards. If his kids and those of other rich parents can have 11 guards, why can't mine have 1 guard?

I feel sorry for you living in a country where you feel it is necessary and desirable for a school to have armed guards.

[Stuart]

Stuart:

First, the militia clause is not being ignored under the Second Amendment. Per the Supreme Court's Heller decision, the "militia" is the entire body of the people. The militia (i.e. the people) cannot have access to arms cut off or otherwise they'd be unable to resist professional armies and, eventually, be subject to a tyrannical government.

An example of interpretation, surely - which was my point. Why not just re-interpret the term "arms".

In context, the founding father's were revolutionaries. They'd just defeated the best army in the world in order to free themselves from a government which they viewed as a tyranny. Under the new system they set up, they wanted to ensure the population could resist in the event their successors went down the same path.

Also, while it is mentioned, ensuring an armed militia (people) was not the only reason for enacting the Second Amendment. The fundamental right to individual self-defense is another purpose for its enactment. This is born out in the history and debates surrounding its adoption. It is for this reason that Washington DC's gun laws were ruled unconstitutional.

So if there's not other way around it, why not just enable people to defend themselves; they don't need semi-automatic weapons, surely? If the modern day US government wanted to suppress the population, I doubt it would be guns that would prevent it. They'd just switch off the internet, cut benefits, or other socio-political means. Heck, if it came down to a battle of arms, it would just be a job for guided missiles on certain fortifications? I'm guessing most Americans don't stockpile weapons - or even own a single gun - because they are afraid of the government, it's because they are afraid of each other - or afraid that the other guy has a bigger gun, "so I'd better get a bigger gun". That's only going to go one way.

And it's a pretty sobering ultimatum: Would you let someone rob you, if they were determined, or would you kill them?

Regardless of whether one feels its appropriate in the modern age, that is the constitutional (supreme) law of the land in the USA. If a group wants to repeal it, they can do so by [simply stated] getting a 2/3 vote amongst the states. Good luck with that.

Second, if the anti-gun crowd is successful in banning guns I suspect we'd see fewer murders, though it won't be as low as the UK as we have somewhat different cultures and, I suspect, a larger percentage of the population willing to do murder. In inconvenient fact with our murder rate is that it is largely motivated by gangs and the drug wars in the inner cities. The Newton shootings and similar get the headlines, but the 500 murders in Chicago are largely ignored as a large segment of society is out of control with criminal gangs dominating entire neighborhoods. If drugs were legalized, I'd bet that our murder rate would drop more than 50%.

On the downside, if guns were made illegal I also suspect we'd see our rape, assault, kidnapping, robbery and burglary rates skyrocket.

If you don't believe me, as one example check out the side by side comparisons between the USA and the UK and Australia. A woman's chances of being raped in the UK The UK assault rate is many times that of the USA. I believe its because a criminally minded big guy with a knife knows he can attack just about any woman anyone he chooses in the UK. In the USA potential rapists attackers have to deal with the inconvenient possibility that the 5' 2", 110 lb blonde is packing a .38. Guns don't care about how big, strong or skilled in the martial arts you are; the revolver was referred to as the "Equalizer" for a reason.

Ditto with a home invader. Dad may be a bespectacled pencil-necked accountant, but his shotgun will trump any armed group of thugs, especially as he'll know the house and circumstances, and they won't. Which means its far likelier that a group of criminals will crash a UK house as opposed to a USA house.

Edit: I confused the UK assault vs. rape statistics. Corrected.

But shouldn't a civilised society be working to worrying about how to stop people needing to steal/rob/assault rather than giving (formerly) law abiding citizens the means to execute them?

[Jeru tha Damaja]

Interesting. It's rarely mentioned that Obama and many leading journalist's children attend the same private school. Which employ 11 armed guards. If his kids and those of other rich parents can have 11 guards, why can't mine have 1 guard?

Your kids' school can have an armed guard, you just have to pay for it. We wouldn't want the federal government putting armed security in schools, we need to be careful about big government and all that. Besides, why should all those without children be forced to pay for the safety of kids they shouldn't have responsibility for? You wanted kids so it should only fall on you to pay to prevent them from getting shot during 3rd period physics.

Hey, you could always pack your gun, go to the school and take care of it yourself.

[Stuart]

Your kids' school can have an armed guard, you just have to pay for it. We wouldn't want the federal government putting armed security in schools, we need to be careful about big government and all that. Besides, why should all those without children be forced to pay for the safety of kids they shouldn't have responsibility for? You wanted kids so it should only fall on you to pay to prevent them from getting shot during 3rd period physics.

Hey, you could always pack your gun, go to the school and take care of it yourself.

I didn't have you down for sarcasm.

[Baz]

Stuart:

First, the militia clause is not being ignored under the Second Amendment. Per the Supreme Court's Heller decision, the "militia" is the entire body of the people. The militia (i.e. the people) cannot have access to arms cut off or otherwise they'd be unable to resist professional armies and, eventually, be subject to a tyrannical government.

In context, the founding father's were revolutionaries. They'd just defeated the best army in the world in order to free themselves from a government which they viewed as a tyranny. Under the new system they set up, they wanted to ensure the population could resist in the event their successors went down the same path.

Also, while it is mentioned, ensuring an armed militia (people) was not the only reason for enacting the Second Amendment. The fundamental right to individual self-defense is another purpose for its enactment. This is born out in the history and debates surrounding its adoption. It is for this reason that Washington DC's gun laws were ruled unconstitutional.

Regardless of whether one feels its appropriate in the modern age, that is the constitutional (supreme) law of the land in the USA. If a group wants to repeal it, they can do so by [simply stated] getting a 2/3 vote amongst the states. Good luck with that.

Surely then, its an outdated concept? Something written over 200 years ago, which is now redundant. The current state of play is the domestic re-enactment of an arms race, at some point someone has to say enough is enough, and how do we just sort this out correctly. In the UK because only a tiny number of people have a gun, Im pretty safe betting that I dont need one to protect myself. Equally if someone wants to steal my stuff, Id be happier to use my insurance policies to recover the loss, rather than getting in a shootout and potentially being killed, If i caught them Id probably throw a punch or two, but ultimately its the judicial system that should decide our mutual fates, not if Im a better shot than them. Im not saying the UK is perfect here.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

I didn't have you down for sarcasm.

I was just following Mr. Moss' separate ideas through to the point where they converge and completely contradict one another. (Okay so I indulged in a little sarcasm, too.)

"We need guns to keep us safe from the armed forces of the government, but to make sure we're safe the federal government should put armed forces in every school in the country." Orwell. 1984. Doublethink.

The good news is that it would create quite a few jobs. There must be quite a few schools in the US. High schools and colleges tend to be large affairs that could never be policed by one man with a gun. So we're talking maybe 500,000 extra people employed by the federal government to police schools. That's going to cost quite a bit of money. But the guys over at Blackwater will be rubbing their hands.

Then there's another slight problem. If you were a gunman on a killing spree there would probably be two ways you'd approach an armed guard. You'd either start as far away from them as possible, knowing that they're not just going to charge in Rambo-style and confront you. Or you'd conceal your weapon until you got nice and close to them and dispose of them first. The people who commit these sort of atrocities usually plan meticulously and arm themselves to the teeth. What kind of weaponry are you going to give to the school guard? Chances are they'll be reacting to a planned assault and they will be hopelessly out-gunned.

Even a SWAT team wouldn't just charge into a room where they're going to be taking fire from an unknown number of gunmen. What chance would one or two guards stand?

It's a short-sighted, reactionary plan and it wouldn't actually work. In fact, didn't Virginia Tech have armed security in 2007?

[Steve Moss]

An example of interpretation, surely - which was my point. Why not just re-interpret the term "arms".

So if there's not other way around it, why not just enable people to defend themselves; they don't need semi-automatic weapons, surely? If the modern day US government wanted to suppress the population, I doubt it would be guns that would prevent it. They'd just switch off the internet, cut benefits, or other socio-political means. Heck, if it came down to a battle of arms, it would just be a job for guided missiles on certain fortifications? I'm guessing most Americans don't stockpile weapons - or even own a single gun - because they are afraid of the government, it's because they are afraid of each other - or afraid that the other guy has a bigger gun, "so I'd better get a bigger gun". That's only going to go one way.

And it's a pretty sobering ultimatum: Would you let someone rob you, if they were determined, or would you kill them?

But shouldn't a civilised society be working to worrying about how to stop people needing to steal/rob/assault rather than giving (formerly) law abiding citizens the means to execute them?

If every word can be "re-interpreted" then the document means nothing. We'd essentially be a nation of men, not laws, and the rich and powerful would run things while we mere plebs would shut up and do as we're told.

We're actually a bit far down that path. We shouldn't accelerate it merely because one finds a particular fundamental right outdated or flawed. If you want to amend the Constitution, do it properly. Not by supplying new definitions. Otherwise the definition of words would change from election cycle to election cycle and that way leads to chaos.

Of course, it is one's attention to turn a people against one another, that's not a bad way to go about it.

Your kids' school can have an armed guard, you just have to pay for it. We wouldn't want the federal government putting armed security in schools, we need to be careful about big government and all that. Besides, why should all those without children be forced to pay for the safety of kids they shouldn't have responsibility for? You wanted kids so it should only fall on you to pay to prevent them from getting shot during 3rd period physics.

Hey, you could always pack your gun, go to the school and take care of it yourself.

The federal government is not in charge of public schools. Local control and all of that, though the feds and state do impose academic and other standards the local school board must meet.

Many public schools do have armed guards in the form of local community police officers. But not all. I suspect that will change, which is for the better.

[Stuart]

If every word can be "re-interpreted" then the document means nothing. We'd essentially be a nation of men, not laws, and the rich and powerful would run things while we mere plebs would shut up and do as we're told.

I don't agree. As you've already stated, the interpretation of the militia term was decided in law. These things can't be done quickly or easily - or change every four years. It takes major political will, driven by the majority and a change to the interpretation of arms should be reviewed. Sadly, the pro-gun lobby will ensure this drags out for years and is never resolved.

I sense you are trying to push the argument down the route of altering the amendment itself, and then BAM you cosh me over the head with a whole piece of political fundemental diatribe about the complete breakdown of the constitution - which is the very fabric of American society.

No, clarify the interpretation, do it properly, do it as swiftly as possible. Not before the momentum caused by the band-wagon jumping, liberal, sentimentalists quietening down as Newtown is forgotten but, God willing, before the next legalised atrocity.

Don't continue to allow big business, who care more about profit than people's lives, dictate terms, and continue to indoctrinate te next generation into regurgitating the "second amendment" mantra as justification - despite not being old enough to have the first clue what the implications are. Well, except the argument they'll likely get into with pop.

It will take balls, I'm not pretending it will be easy; because pro-gun groups turning down financial support to keep the hamster on the wheel will not happen easily - or voluntarily. That would be like Toys 'R' Us signing up to cancel Christmas.

Sorry if that turned into a rant.

[Steve Moss]

I don't agree. As you've already stated, the interpretation of the militia term was decided in law. These things can't be done quickly or easily - or change every four years. It takes major political will, driven by the majority and a change to the interpretation of arms should be reviewed. Sadly, the pro-gun lobby will ensure this drags out for years and is never resolved.

I sense you are trying to push the argument down the route of altering the amendment itself, and then BAM you cosh me over the head with a whole piece of political fundemental diatribe about the complete breakdown of the constitution - which is the very fabric of American society.

No, clarify the interpretation, do it properly, do it as swiftly as possible. Not before the momentum caused by the band-wagon jumping, liberal, sentimentalists quietening down as Newtown is forgotten but, God willing, before the next legalised atrocity.

There is no trick. The definition of arms has been decided. It is those weapons in common use by the people. Legislation, a law passed by Congress, cannot limit a fundamental right by redefining "arms". It would take a Constitutional amendment to do so.

As it should be. Legislators in the "heat of passion" cannot take our constitutional rights away. Only a super-majority of the people may do so. So if there is truly broad public support to gut the Second Amendment, follow the amendment process. Anything else in deception and will only be met with further deception as right and left wing factions vie of dominance in the Courts via "redefined" words every four years.

[Stuart]

Steve, I may as well not have bothered posting.

Have a good New Year. Hope it's a peaceful and prosperous one for you and yours.

[Steve Moss]

Stuart-

Agreed. I think we're talking past one another, each assured of the correctness of our positions.

Here's a Wall Street Journal piece on the First and Second Amendments and the dangerous games which are now being played: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324274404578213591581615224.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

[dave birch]

Steve, whilst this is somewhat off topic, it still applies to the changing of laws in the US.

At the moment we are witnessing the worst of the federal system of government with the impass surrounding the "Fiscal Cliff" debacle.

In the US, there needs to be a rethink of the way they do government. It has got to be less of "what is best for our group" it has to be "what is the best for the good of the country and it's population".

Clearly, we have seen vested interests at play in the latest game of brinksmanship. It's time they thought out the long term consequences of their actions and acted appropriately.

It's time the system was amended so that this situation can't arise and that governmental decisions can be made one way or the other.

The US can't continue on this present path. Government lawmaking will slow as decision making will take (as we have just witnessed) forever to pass laws that many other countries do in days.

[Steve Moss]

At the moment we are witnessing the worst of the federal system of government with the impass surrounding the "Fiscal Cliff" debacle.

In the US, there needs to be a rethink of the way they do government. It has got to be less of "what is best for our group" it has to be "what is the best for the good of the country and it's population".

I think if we returned to the basics, federalism and separation of powers, it would resolve most of the problems.

And if I could modify the Constitution once, it would be to repeal the 17th Amendment. I think that amendment upset the balance between states and the federal government to the detriment of the nation.

Update: Under the logic of some, let's ban hammers and clubs. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles

[ABBEY]

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-01-05/report-three-people-killed-in-aurora-hostage-situation/

MORE DEATHS BY GUNS AND STILL PEOPLE WANT THEM .

[beerwins]

Edit

[Steve Moss]

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-01-05/report-three-people-killed-in-aurora-hostage-situation/

MORE DEATHS BY GUNS AND STILL PEOPLE WANT THEM .

I think we should ban Englishmen. Look at all the murders they commit without even the excuse that they have easy access to guns:

http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html

[dave birch]

Sorry Steve, but that's a weak argument.

I could say, "look at all the murders that haven't been committed because of the unavailabilty of guns."

Yes, things could have been (most probably) worse that they are.

To my mind you (the Americans) are living with an amendment that was set up to deal with a situation in the late 1700's.

Things change, so should the laws governing those times.

[Mike E]

Sorry Steve, but that's a weak argument.

I could say, "look at all the murders that haven't been committed because of the unavailabilty of guns."

Yes, things could have been (most probably) worse that they are.

To my mind you (the Americans) are living with an amendment that was set up to deal with a situation in the late 1700's.

Things change, so should the laws governing those times.

Perhaps being slightly extreme but it's comparable to sharia law in some ways. Just a completely outdated law that has no place in modern times.

[SydneyRover]

I think we should ban Englishmen. Look at all the murders they commit without even the excuse that they have easy access to guns:

http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html

The homicide rate in the US is four times as high as in the UK.

The number of people who are murdered by guns is between fifty to ninety times as high in the US as in the UK.

A similar number of people per 100,000 (0.2)die from firearms accidents in the US than die of all causes of firearms use (murder, suicide, accidental) in the UK.

Which difference between the two countries do you think is the biggest between them to make such a huge impact?

If its not the difference in the availability of guns then what do you think is driving it?

I really wouldn't compare the US with the UK as you'll end up looking a bit foolish.

[thenodrog]

This thread is tedious. I realise that we have a history of doing so but don't people think that in proposing laws for other countries with different cultures of which most of us have absolutely no experience of that we are exceeding our brief a little? Basically it's @#/? all to do with us isn't it? We have enough problems with gun crime as it is... and even with our supposedly stringent (paper tiger) laws which restrict and control them BUT ONLY it constantly appears to law abiding citizens.

If it were down to me I'd ban military style assault / automatic weapons forthwith and possibly place restrictions on ammunition held (if that was workeable and enforcable) ... but it isn't down to me is it? And that applies to all.

[Mike E]

It's all hypothetical Theno, but it's still good to debate. Much like every other topic on here, it's hard for us to influence, but it's good to debate about it.

[Steve Moss]

The homicide rate in the US is four times as high as in the UK.

The number of people who are murdered by guns is between fifty to ninety times as high in the US as in the UK.

A similar number of people per 100,000 (0.2)die from firearms accidents in the US than die of all causes of firearms use (murder, suicide, accidental) in the UK.

Which difference between the two countries do you think is the biggest between them to make such a huge impact?

If its not the difference in the availability of guns then what do you think is driving it?

I really wouldn't compare the US with the UK as you'll end up looking a bit foolish.

Really? Why is it your assault rate is nearly three times that of the USA? Without weapons violent crime makes it appear the UK is the more violent country. Why is that?